News Release from Barney Frank
Congressman, 4th District, Massachusetts
2252 Rayburn Building · Washington, D.C. 20515 · (202) 225-5931
For Immediate Release: Contact: Peter Kovar (202) 225-9400
July 29, 2008
August 22, 2008
FRANK DISAPPOINTED IN AGENCY RESPONSE ON FISHERY MANAGEMENT TIMETABLEAsks Top Federal Official For Meeting on Key IssuesU.S.
Congressman Barney Frank said he was “disappointed” that Admiral Conrad
Lautenbacher, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), did not agree to the request by Frank and four
of his colleagues to delay implementation of a major New England
fishery management plan until 2010.
In a letter Frank
sent to Admiral Lautenbacher yesterday, the Congressman took issue with
both Lautenbacher’s unwillingness to consider extending the start date
of the Amendment 16 management plan from late 2009 until May 2010, and
with his failure to seriously address several key recommendations made
by the recent New Bedford Fisheries Summit. Frank also asked
Admiral Lautenbacher to agree to meet with Members of Congress and
representatives of the New England fishing industry to discuss these
issues in more detail.
On July 25, Frank and Reps. John Tierney
(D-MA), Joe Courtney (D-CT), James McGovern (D-MA), and Michael Capuano
(D-MA) wrote to Admiral Lautenbacher urging a delay in Amendment 16’s
implementation, and asking his agency to focus on key points from the
Fisheries Summit recommendations. The Admiral responded in an
August 12 letter, which in turn prompted Frank’s reply yesterday.
Copies of Admiral Lautenbacher’s August 12 letter and Congressman Frank’s August 21 response appear below.
********
August 21, 2008
Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher
Administrator
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
U.S. Department of Commerce
Herbert Hoover Building
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
Dear Admiral Lautenbacher:
I
am disappointed that your response to the July 25, 2008 letter from
several of my colleagues about Amendment 16 to the Northeast
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and several related points fails
to address the fundamental issues about which we wrote.
I
continue to believe that, with the New England Fishery Management
Council having already agreed to delay until essentially the last
quarter of 2009 the implementation of Amendment 16 -- a delay that will
put the implementation into the middle of the fishing year – it would
make sense to wait until the following May to implement the
Amendment. This is true both to allow for full analysis of the
relevant data and to bring about greater synchronization of the
Amendment with the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act. I remain
convinced that retaining the shorter time line will likely have a
negative economic impact on the fishing industry in the region.
By
contrast, your objections as outlined in your letter appear to be based
at least in part on the fact that, with a delay until May 2010 it would
be necessary to adopt interim management measures until Amendment 16
goes into effect. But, this is true even under the current
shorter time extension adopted by the Council. Interim measures
will clearly have to be in place for the period from May 2009 until
such time, toward the end of 2009, as the Council completes its work on
Amendment 16. Thus, while your statement that “the rebuilding
plans in the FMP require that fishing mortality be reduced for several
groundfish stocks as of May 1, 2009, to end overfishing”, may be true,
it is irrelevant to whether the implementation date should be extended
beyond the current Council extension. As stated above, some
interim management measure will be necessary regardless.
Furthermore,
while it may be true that the “requirement to end overfishing…is not
directly tied to the new annual catch limits”, it is evident that –
once the new ACL regulations are finalized -- whatever management
structure is then in place will have to be significantly modified to
take the new requirements into account. Thus it would, again, in
my view, make more sense to adopt interim management measures covering
the entire fishing year, instead of only a portion of it, and then
implement Amendment 16 with a full understanding of all the relevant
data and how the new ACL rules apply to the Northeast fishery. To
the extent that I can help facilitate discussions or other efforts
aimed at determining how best to structure necessary interim measures I
would be pleased to work with you in doing so.
Finally, you
largely dismiss the key recommendations from the New Bedford Fishing
Summit which we highlighted in our letter. While I understand
that you may disagree with some of these suggestions, they were the
product of a lengthy process of discussion and debate. During
what is a particularly difficult economic period for the fishing
industry, I believe the recommendations deserve more serious
consideration on the part of your agency. Accordingly, I ask that
you agree to meet with a group of Members of Congress and
representatives of the industry from New England to discuss these
matters in greater detail.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. I look forward to your response.
BARNEY FRANK
CLICK HERE TO READ Admiral Lautenbacher’s August 12 letter
